Add a new page

Similar to George Herbert Mead’s theory of the development and interactions of “The Self, the I, and the Me,” Erving Goffman (1955) describes the development of “lines” and how they become the basis, essentially, for individuals in social situations. Through evaluating one’s self and other individuals in a particular group setting, one engages in verbal and nonverbal actions that are indicative of one’s particular point of view, otherwise known as a “line” (Goffman 1955, 338). The aforementioned “line” taken is “the positive social value” (Goffman 1955, 338) acclaimed by one, and is defined as the(ir) “face.”

As in other instances in which there is more than one representation of self involved, this notion of multiple faces can result in either chaos or harmony. When a line and internal image of one’s self are harmonious, one’s said to “have,” “be in,” or “maintain” one’s face (Goffman 1955, 339). Feelings of security and contentedness result from feeling as though one is in face. Subsequently, feelings of confidence arise when one can maintain face successfully.

In contrast, since the face is an emotive representation of self, discontinuity in the maintenance of face evokes negative feelings and tension. If any discontinuity between information and perceived line exists, one is described as “in the wrong face” (Goffman 1955, 339). Similarly, one can be “out of face” (Goffman 1955, 339) when one fails to have a line ready for portrayal. In any of these cases of failed face, extensive shame and threatened feelings result. If these negative feelings are exhibited, further damage ensues. In addition, emotions are associated with particular faces. For example, if I were “in” a particular face and was involved in conflict with another individual, said individual would from that point on associate that face with the confrontation.

After establishing the basis for what a face is, Goffman addresses the particular set of societal rules and etiquette also connected with how to interact with others and respect their faces. The goal of social encounters’ goal is to maintain face, and social relationship etiquette includes not destroying the presented face of anyone in the group. The individual’s priority is to work towards a particular image for one’s self and maintain it once it is achieved. Finally, when one’s place in society is solidified, whether voluntarily or not, they (from that point on) act accordingly avoiding people and places that would elicit conflict or put face in danger. Since people invest themselves in ideas and ideas are what are vulnerable to offenders (by way of communication), people must often sacrifice justice when put in the face of danger in order to save face.

After discussing the very particular manner in which people establish themselves and interact with others, Goffman concludes that human nature involves systematic self-regulating participants that are socialized through rituals to hold certain values and abide by particular standards of behavior. Ultimately, human nature is not natural, but a “ritually organized system of social activity” (Goffman 1955, 342).

Tweets:

1922-1982. University of Toronto – 1945. Ph.D from the University of Chicago – 1953.Taught at Berkeley (until 1968), and then the University of Pennsylvania.

Through evaluating one’s self and those in a group setting, one performs verbal and nonverbal actions that are indicative of his particular point of view, called a “line” (Goffman 1955, 338).

The line taken is “the positive social value” (Goffman 1955, 338) acclaimed by one and is defined as the person’s face.

Each face, others and self, evokes whatever emotions have become associated with that face.

Face is emotive representation of self and others. Discontinuity evokes more feelings.

When a line and internal image of one’s self are harmonious, one’s said to “have,” “be in,” or “maintain” (Goffman 1955, 339) face.

How many “options” one has in regards to line and face is contingent upon how well the co-participants in the situation “know” the person in question.

Inter-dependency of faces within a group as well as the likelihood of contact with the same face determines the types of lines and faces people portray.

When discontinuity, between information and perceived line, exists one is described as “in the wrong face” (Goffman 1955, 339); similarly one can be “out of face” (Goffman 1955, 339) when not having a line ready for portrayal.

Security and contentedness result from feeling as though one is in face; confidence also consequence.

When one is out of face/in wrong face, extensive shame and threatened feelings result.

“For example, in polite society, a handshake that should not have been extended becomes one which cannot be declined.” (28.4)
"Many gods have been done away with, but the individual himself stubbornly remains as a deity of considerable importance. … In contacts between such deities there is no need for middlemen; each of the gods is able to serve as his own priest" (95).

Outline of Essay

Definitions Face, line, social worth, undertaking

The Basic kinds of face-work

Making Points – The Aggressive Use of Face Work. Situation as face-work contest/match. Any of the threats to face/situation can be exploited, manipulated. Fishing for compliments, setting up confirmatory events, offenses you know others will take (it being unbecoming to complain), take your ball and go home, debase self to guilt others.

The Choice of Appropriate Face-Work

Cooperation at Face-Work

Ritual Roles of the Self

Spoken Interaction

Face and Social Relationships (41)

The Nature of the Ritual Order

DEFINITIONS

a) Face, line, social worth, undertaking,

THE BASIC KINDS OF FACE-WORK

a) The avoidance process (15.3)

i) Dealing with incidents

(1) Deny/overlook – “tactful blindness”

(2) Admit but continue

(3) Turn away / time out

b) The corrective process (19.1)

i) Ritual disequilibrium

(1) Interchange

(a) Offense

(b) Challenge

(c) Offering

(i) Redefinition

(ii) Compensation/punishment/expiation

1. Rehabilitation of one’s “type” – One really is well developed Meadean self

2. Assurance that ritual code is intact

(d) Acceptance

(e) Gratitude

3) MAKING POINTS – THE AGGRESSIVE USE OF FACE WORK

a) Any of the threats to face/situation can be exploited, manipulated. Fishing for compliments, setting up confirmatory events, offenses you know others will take (it being unbecoming to complain), take your ball and go home, debase self to guilt others.

c) Interactive aggression is as much about showing you can maintain interactive balance as about the content of snubs and such. Ripostes, squelches, toppers. "Oh yeah, well take this!"

4) THE CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE FACE-WORK

a) Social norms govern expected handlings of threats to face. When is it appropriate to show poise, when should one break down and apologize, etc.? Knife-edge moment when participants don't

know if a small gaffe will be ignored by offender or whether attention will be called via an apology, explanation, etc.

5) COOPERATION AT FACE-WORK

a) Face-work is frequently a group project. Savoire-faire, tact, diplomacy, gaffe, and faux pas can refer to either the actor's own face or that of others.

"Thus, for example, in polite society, a handshake that perhaps should not have been extended becomes one that cannot be declined" (28).

b) Situations become a cooperation game in which individual interest in own and other's face drives participants toward a collectively "rational" equilibrium.

c) Second order tact. Helping others to help themselves helping oneself (29). Self-effacing prefaces. Warnings about gaffes to avoid. Perhaps the most classic: "I'm just a beginner (so be gentle, etc.)."

f) Goffman claims that our willingness and ability to play this game is what makes it possible for the self to be a "ritually delicate object" and for talk to proceed as we know it (and, in some sense, this way is akin to what Simmel described in "Socialty as Play Form of Sociation")

6) RITUAL ROLES OF THE SELF

a) Double definition of self

i) OBJECT/ME?: Image pieced together from expressive implications of flow of events

(1) Sacred objects subject to slights and profanation

ii) SUBJECT/I?: Player in ritual game who copes dis/honorably, un/diplomatically with judgmental contingencies of situation

b) "…the person seems to have a special license to accept mistreatment at his own hands that he does not have right to accept from others" (32). Might be a self-limiting system: under normal circumstances one won't overslam oneself but others might.

c) Only you can forgive slight affronts by others to your sacred image. Only others can forgive such affronts you administer to yourself. Institutional design: “…each participant tends to be given the right to handle only those matters which he will have little motivation for mishandling.” (33.2) Rights and obligations assigned so as provide no incentives subject/I to abuse role of self as sacred object.

7) SPOKEN INTERACTION

a) Stunning density of symbolic stuff means face-to-face talk is full of this ritual stuff to an extreme degree.

b) “to be in a state of talk” – participants declare themselves open to ongoing flow of communication

m) The reciprocity of the system makes it possible for us to "be" together.

8) FACE AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS (41)

a) Encounters are generally part of "repeated play" at relationships. Goal is to get into and out of social encounters without changing relationship between interactants or without disturbing expected trajectory. "Hello again" and "Until next time" link interaction across space-time of ongoing relationships. Emotional energy put into these bridge the interaction-empty spaces in between encounters.

9) THE NATURE OF THE RITUAL ORDER

a) More accommodative than competitive. Goffman calls logic used to think about other types of social order "school boy" – very Catholic, simple economistic : work hard to get ahead, obey the rules or risk punishment. A "hard, dull game."

b) Society runs an easier game, Goffman suggests.

Whatever his position in society, the person insulates himself by blindnesses, half-truths, illusions, and rationalizations. He makes an "adjustment" by convincing himself, with the tactical support of his intimate circle, that he is what he wants to be and that he would not do to gain his ends what the others have one to gain theirs. And as for society, if the person is willing to be subject to informal social control – if he is willing to find out from hints and glances and tactful cues what his place is, and keep it – then there will be little objection to his furnishing this place at his own discretion, with all the comfort, elegance, and nobility that his wit can muster for him. … Social life is an uncluttered, orderly thing because the person voluntarily stays away from the places and topics and times where he is not wanted and where he might be disparaged for going. He cooperates to save his own face, finding that there is much to be gained from venturing nothing. (43.6)

c) In interaction, it's not about "facts" but about ideas about oneself. "Ideas are vulnerable not to facts and things but to communications" (43.8). Social interaction not a simple game of reward and punishment but rather one of playing or not playing.

d) "Societies everywhere, if they are to be societies, must mobilize their members as self-regulating participants in social encounters" (44.7).

i) So, what minimal model of humans do we need if we are to wind them up and see "society" happen?

"The general capacity to be bound by moral rules may well belong to the individual, but the particular set of rules which transforms him into a human being derives from requirements established in the ritual organization of social encounters."